Avoid Expensive Legal Action: Improve Your Human Resources Department

Guest Post

Small businesses owners generally struggle, when it comes to maintaining a fully-equipped human resources department. And this is a shame because often a company owes its success to its fantastic HR service. Not only do they help recruit the very best in the business, but they nurture existing employees, deal with conflict, and make sure you’re protected from expensive legal action; particularly after the changes in the employer / employee claiming market.

Offer Training Opportunities
As an employer, you’re always worried that any training offered will go on to benefit a competitor, if your employee decides to pursue another position at a different company. However, enriching your workers through your HR department ensures that your services are high quality and up to date. Employees like to feel as if they are moving forward and developing as a professional – it gives them confidence. Stagnant jobs lead to stagnant business.

Build Team Relationships
Without a doubt, companies run well if there are solid communication links between employees. By building interpersonal relationships through HR schemes, you can boost the efficiency and creativity of workers in the office.

Communication
A large part of HR is good communication skills. Not only should your HR employees be able to draft a well-worded letter, but they should be able to talk with other employees. Often, members of the HR team have to deal with personal problems and delicate information. They should be discreet and sensitive, where needed.

Stay Ahead Of the Game
Laws change all the time. It’s up to your HR department to stay on top of rules and regulations, to make sure that your company doesn’t fall foul of the law. They should lead by example and create a safe workplace for your employees.

Family-Friendly
Fact: family-friendly businesses attract and maintain the best employees. Having a family-friendly HR department means that you can retain talent, even when workers decide to take on the responsibilities of parenthood. That means considering flexible hours and allowing time for parents to attend family emergencies. Think of your HR department as your business’s employment lawyer, focussing on your concerns.

Conflict Management
Whenever there are groups of people, there’s bound to be friction every once in a while. HR departments are ideal for taking care of conflict management and should be able to diffuse tense situations. Angst isn’t good for office morale and can often distract employees from their work. And, of course, as an employer, you want a pleasant working environment for your staff.

Organisation
If HR has to be one thing, it’s certainly ‘organised’. With so much information to store and concerns to process, organisation stops the company from descending into chaos. Your HR department usually deals with the payroll system, or outsources this task, as well as other significant processes.

Recognising the Positives
Through the HR department, you can keep tabs on employee progress and reward those who excel at their line of work. Where members of staff have really gone the distance, they deserve recognition for their efforts, to promote similar behaviour throughout the office.

Brain Injury Lawsuits: Will They Doom or Save the NFL?

Guest Post

110 million Americans settled down to watch the 47^th Super Bowl last February, making it one of the most popular sports in the US. However, ex-players have been pointing a finger at the NFL and accusing them of causing degenerative brain conditions, due to repeated instances of serious concussion on the pitch. Even President Obama has expressed concerns for the sport, saying that if he had a son, he would think twice about letting him play American Football.

In 1904, before the NFL was created, no less than 18 college football players died from head injuries. Rules changed. Protective equipment improved. But it just goes to show how brutal this game can be.

Dallas Cowboys quarterback, Roger Staubach, threw in the towel after experiencing 20 concussions. Philadelphia Eagles passer, Jon Jaworski, said he’d suffered no less than 30.

A concussion occurs when the brain crashes into the skull, so it doesn’t necessarily require a direct hit to the head. Symptoms of concussion include losing consciousness, problems with vision, confusion, and nausea. According to research, conducted by the American Academy of Neurology, 51% of players had been knocked unconscious on more than one occasion and 31% had trouble with their memory.

Surely this highlights the fact that American football is dangerous for its players – of course, anyone who watched a game would be able to tell you that (and without a scientific study to boot). But the vast majority of American football’s appeal comes from its inherent violence. Will American football go the same way as boxing and watch its many fans leave the stadiums, if the brutality is turned down?

CTE
Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) is a disease that is caused by the repeated jostling of the brain against the skull. It can affect your memory and emotional state, as well as cause dementia and death. Symptoms are similar to those who experience Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Many ex-players, who have either died or killed themselves because of CTE, have families who are trying to take legal action against the NFL.

After neurosurgeons continued to unearth evidence that football players were developing severe disorders, the NFL began a programme that awarded $88,000 a year to any players who required institutionalisation because of their brain injuries.

NFL’s Reaction
The NFL is now pouring money into medical research and charitable donations, to stem the tide of vitriol. Some people are likening American football to smoking and that the NFL, like tobacco companies, is trying to play down the health risks of this contact sport.

Although dropping unconscious on numerous occasions is concerning, neuroscientists are warning that football causes ‘subconcussive’ effects, and that these can also lead to CTE with time. With this awareness, is this the end of American football or will the NFL succeed in taking the proper precautions to protect players? Only time will tell, but given the prevalent culture and popularity of the sport, it’s unlikely to go away soon.

Composed for Barlow Robbins, brain injury solicitors who have many years experience dealing with brain trauma. Their brain injury page, includes references to leading solicitors and additional supportive information for help on the matter.

Tenancy Law – “Providing a False Statement Knowingly”

Guest PostLegal 4 Landlords
www.legal4landlords.com
23/07/2013

Introduced by the Housing Act 1996 was an additional ground for eviction, which aimed to deal with a growing number of fraudulent tenancies. The new ground for eviction (Ground 17) was aptly names “Providing a False Statement Knowingly”.

The additional ground is however only a discretionary ground, which makes a total of 9 discretionary eviction grounds, and 8 mandatory eviction grounds – 17 grounds altogether (click here for a full list of mandatory and discretionary grounds for eviction).

Specifically Ground 17 is for when a tenant (or a person acting for the tenant) is deliberately dishonest in order to obtain a tenancy, which they would not have otherwise been able to secure. Letting agents and landlords where frequently frustrated by a relatively small number of potential tenants who provided both misleading and deliberately deceptive information, which did not always come to light until after the tenancy has started, at which point they previously had little recourse. With the introduction of Ground 17, landlords at least have the option to take action against tenants who has made fraudulent claims.

Tenant References and Tenant Application Forms
The majority of letting agents, and most landlords take proactive measures to “vet” their tenants prior to signing a tenancy agreement. The most common part of the vetting process is a tenant reference. This reference (which is usually completed by a third party tenant referencing company such as Legal 4 Landlords) will ask the potential tenant various questions about their financial situation, employment, lifestyle and previous address history. The results will then be fed back to the landlord or letting agent together with a recommendation, usually either Accept of Decline (some maybe returned as accept only with guarantor).

A small number of tenants who have been declined tenancies in the past due to their tenant reference may decide to provide false information in order to ensure an “accept” is received.

Most Common Types of Fraudulent Information
Research completed by Legal 4 Landlords has highlighted three main areas which are most susceptible to fraudulent statements:-

1. Tenant(s) states they are single when they are not
This can be because they know their partner would not pass a tenant reference or a credit search, and therefore conceal their relationship in order to avoid the tenancy application being rejected. Another common reason for the applicant claiming to be single when they are not is in order to qualify for housing benefit or tax credits as a single person / parent.

2. Tenant(s) states they are employed when they are not
This could simply be an unemployed tenant trying to obtain a tenancy which specified professional tenants only (no DSS). Some may go to great lengths to confirm employment, including fraudulent pay slips or by providing false employment reference. (useful tip: always confirm employment references using a landline phone number which can be found on the company’s website, and then ask to be transferred to the person who provided the reference)

3. Tenant(s) claim they have lived with parents for the last 3 years
This is generally to avoid bad debt detection, or to avoid providing their previous landlord details.

How to Use Ground 17 for Eviction Proceedings
Ground 17 is a discretionary ground, and so the court will take a subjective view on the particular details surrounding the claim and whether it is reasonable to grant an order for possession (evict the tenant) when considering the requirements of the Ground 17:-

“Recovery of possession where grant induced by false statement”

The tenant is the person, or one of the persons, to whom the tenancy was granted and the landlord was induced to grant the tenancy by a false statement made knowingly or recklessly by—

(a) the tenant, or
(b) a person acting at the tenant’s instigation.”

Click here to view Ground 17 details on legislation.gov.uk

This ground has two significant components which the landlord would need to prove:

(a) they were induced to grant the tenancy by a false statement, and
(b) the false statement was made knowingly or recklessly.

NOTE: the false information does not need to come directly from the tenant, but can be from a third party in which the tenant has influenced, for example a false employment reference.

What the Court will Consider

• Did the tenant deliberately provide misleading, false or withhold information on their tenant application or tenant reference forms?
  
• Does the landlord have evidence of the deception, for example a copy of the tenancy application or tenant reference form completed and signed by the tenant?
  
• What was the nature and extent of the false statement? Eg. was it a slight exaggeration of earnings, or did they completely falsify their employment situation?
  
• When did the landlord find out about the false information, and how quickly did they seek legal remedy?

Most often the landlord will not find out about the false information until a property inspection is carried out, or if problems with rental payments arise.

Identity Theft
In additional to any fraudulent information provided by the tenant, it is also worth considering the possibility of identity theft. Landlord and letting agents can reduce their risk by confirming the potential tenants identify with a trusted form of photo ID, for example a passport or photo card driving license.

Closing the rape porn loophole - better late than never

From the Guardian 22/07/13:

Every household in Britain connected to the internet will be obliged to declare whether they want to maintain access to online pornography, David Cameron will announce on Monday.

In the most dramatic step by the government to crack down on the "corroding" influence of pornography on childhood, the prime minister will say that all internet users will be contacted by their service providers and given an "unavoidable choice" on whether to use filters.

The prime minister will also announce that possession of "extreme pornography", which includes scenes of simulated rape, will be outlawed by the government. It is illegal to publish such pornography and illegal to possess it in Scotland but not in England and Wales.

I remember reading McGlynn and Rackley’s* article a few years ago which criticised the omission of rape from the ‘extreme pornography’ provisions under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

*See C. McGlynn, and E. Rackley, ‘Criminalising extreme pornography: a lost opportunity’, Crim. L.R. 2009, 4, 245-260.

As the authors highlight, the exclusion of rape represents not just a glaring omission on the part of the legislature, but an inexcusable deviation from the Government’s mission statement which set out rationale behind the provisions on extreme pornography in the first place.

[P]ornographic pro-rape websites, which are freely and easily accessible online, will [not] be covered by these measures. This is lamentable, not least because the “extensive availability of sites featuring violent rape” was within the initial purview of the Government. Although some “violent” rapes may be covered (what is “non-violent” rape?), if they involve weapons or result in serious injury to the anus, breasts or genitals, this excludes many pornographic rape images.

While many of the “rapes” on pornographic rape websites may not be “real”, but staged, they nonetheless are often presented as real and certainly presented to valorise forced sex. Indeed, one deeply ironic aspect of the exclusion of pornographic rape websites from the scope of the CJIA is that the apparent evidence of a causal link between exposure to violent pornography and a propensity to commit acts of sexual violence (deployed by the Government) is based on research which invariably deploys images of rape as the basis for investigation.

Rape sites, such as those described above, should have been brought within the scope of these measures, whether or not the rape involves additional physical violence**, and their exclusion reveals the extent to which the Government has strayed from its initial ambition and lost sight of the harms to be addressed by these measures.

** My emphasis.

It’s a positive sign that the government has finally acknowledged the need to close this gaping lacuna; it’s just a pity it’s taken them 4 – 5 years to do so.

An Update from Marmite the Bunny

Marmitius Cheekius Rabbitus (Latin name, obviously).

Hello there readers,

It’s been almost a year since I first graced the blawgopshere and it’s been a busy time for all at Law Actually HQ.

After the cable-damage incident in the LA datacentre last June, I took it upon myself to investigate the possibility of running the electrical and computer cabling under the floors.

To this end, I had to make an access hole through one of the carpets in the entrance hall – something which did not go down particularly well with all my colleagues. Despite assuring everyone that I had the business’ interests at heart, I found myself firmly rebuked for the creation of said hole. To make matters worse, my experiment wasn’t a total success either. As I submitted in my written report, “the concrete floors on the lower levels made the installation of cabling on a subterranean basis untenable.”

What a bummer. Even as a bunny, you live and learn.

Back in September, I appeared in the Metro “Pets of the Day” and later in the autumn I assisted in the planting of daffodil bulbs. I was particularly helpful in digging holes in the soil, even though I felt my assistance wasn’t properly appreciated by some! Humph. Once spring finally sprung this year, the daffodils provided some cheery springtime colour to the Law Actually grounds.

Leading up to Christmas, I was asked to don on my Santa hat (much to my chagrin) and feature in a photo shoot. All I was interested in was my afternoon nap.

Christmas was a merry affair at LA HQ with a day, as Michael dubbed it, “of festive fare and merry-making”. I had a great time opening my gifts, hiding under the Christmas tree and nibbling it when the fancy took me. I found the gift wrapping of much greater interest than the gifts themselves.

The snow in January was really quite something. I particularly liked burrowing through it to nibble the sweet tender grass below. Coping with the ice proved trickier than I expected; even with four legs I was slipping and sliding like a trooper, but I didn’t let it stop me binkying like a mad thing.

Spring and summer has seen my interest in herbs rekindled. There’s nothing I like more than a good munch on some fresh fennel, mint and parsley from the Law Actually gardens. I’ve also developed a taste for strawberry plants and beetroot leaves!

I like to sun myself (when it’s not too warm). There’s nothing like a dose of Vitamin D to bring a certain lushness to a bun’s coat of fur!

That’s all for now, readers.

Until the next time.

Yours,

‘Captain Sum Ting Wong’ broadcasting debacle

From the Metro 15/07/13:

Asiana Airlines is considering legal action over a TV news report that broadcast four spoof names that it said were the pilot’s involved in the San Francisco plane crash.

The carrier said its reputation had been ‘badly damaged’ after the bogus names were read out on the city’s KTVU-TV, along with a graphic of the burned-out plane.

An news anchor kept a straight face as she read the names ‘Captain Sum Ting Wong’, ‘Wi Tu Lo’, ‘Bang Ding Ow’ and ‘Ho Le Fuk’.

Despite claiming the names had been confirmed by a National Transportation Safety Board official, the anchor later apologised for the station’s mistake.

The National Transportation Safety Board has also apologised, saying a summer intern erroneously confirmed the names of the flight crew.

Asiana is mulling unspecified legal measures against both KTVU-TV and the NTSB.

I’m no expert when it comes to US law, but I should imagine the ‘unspecified legal measures’ the article refers to is defamation (that is, libel – assuming US law treats ‘broadcasted slander’ in the same way as English law) and, as against the KTVU-TV, a possible breach of the USA’s broadcasting law.

Whether Asiana would have a viable action (certainly in the case of defamation proceedings) remains far from clear, however.

Maybe from a PR point of view, this might be a case of ‘least said, soonest mended’.

Apprentices: employed, but at what price?

Guest Post

Legal 4 Landlords
www.leadersinlaw.co.uk
08/07/2013

Apprentices are usually fixed term contracts in which the apprentice expects and agreed amount of training. For this reason, apprentices are usually exempt of being made redundant (unless the company closes down).

But what about their other employment rights?

For school leavers, making the decision about what you want to do with your life can be an incredibly daunting one. University was a popular option, but recent rises in tuition fees mean that some people have been put off going. School leavers sometimes want to get out earning money from the time that they sit their last exam, but this cannot always be the best option for long-term career qualifications. For this reason, more and more young people are attracted to applying for an apprenticeship, because it allows them to earn a wage and also benefit from comprehensive training. Whilst this vocational training it likely to be paid at a rate less than the minimum wage, as industry qualifications are also included, apprentices need to be clear about exactly what their rights are, with regards to the law. We’ve all seen the TV show, ‘The Apprentice,’ where Alan Sugar fires the weakest employee, but the only similarity with the TV show is the name.

Traditionally, an apprenticeship was a contract of employment, to train an individual in the necessary skills for a qualification or job role: modern apprenticeships, available today, are often comprised of the employer, the individual and the Government, who might contribute some funds to the training. The apprentice is required to work for 16 hours a week or more, and also to attend college. Apprenticeships are usually for a fixed duration, usually between one and four years, and should still include a contact outlining the rights and responsibilities of both parties. As the apprentice has a contract of employment, they also have the same rights as other employees, regarding protection for things like unfair dismissal and protection against discrimination. The apprentice, rather than having less rights, often has more than typical employees because there are also expectations of training involved. So, what are these rights?

• Apprentices are not usually sacked, unless for cases of gross misconduct, which might involve behaviour like habitually refusing to do certain tasks: the grounds for dismissal for gross misconduct are much narrower than for non-apprentice employees. Apprentices are generally exempt from redundancy, unless the workplace closes down. The implications of an apprentice being sacked unlawfully can be expensive, as damages are usually higher than for unfair dismissals because they include loss of training and status.
• Moreover, apprentices are entitled to their own scale of minimum wages, which starts at £2.60 per hour for the under 19s. They are also entitled to statutory sick pay, unless they have been on the apprenticeship for less than three months, and they are also not generally recommended to have their apprenticeship terminated for incapacity: rather, it is suggested that the apprenticeship be deferred. Enhanced sick pay may be available, at the employer’s discretion.
• In terms of breaks, apprentices are entitled to the same amount of breaks as employees as they come under the Working Time Regulations of 1998, like an employee would: a twenty minute break for every six hours worked. This is regardless of any day release for college that apprentices might have. For the under 18’s, who may work for up to 40 hours a week, and the over 18’s, who can work up to 48 hours a week, the law protects the same as it would for any other employer.
• Apprentices are also protected from discrimination, as would be expected. There is no reason to believe that you should be given the worse jobs, or treated any differently, as an apprentice. Moreover, if there are specific issues of discrimination then, like any employee, the employer has a legal right to protect you from them.

Despite this legal protection, some apprentices have reported horror stories such as:

• Some apprentices have been paid only £25.00 for working a 40 hour week!
• Some employers have not paid apprentices for their college hours.
• Some apprentices have been denied the chance to take holidays
• Being told that they cannot leave work to go to college.
• Having to pay for their own college course, from their wages.
• Working for up to 70 hours a week!

So, what do you do if you find yourself in one of these situations?

In the first instance the cheapest and least likely to create a difficult atmosphere, would be to speak to your manager and express your concerns. If you have done this and it has failed to make any difference, or you feel unable to speak to your manager, or you no longer work at the company, then a sensible step would be to consult a solicitor.

Many law firms, such as Leaders in Law provide free “first advice” (usually a telephone call directly with a lawyer) to give you some basic advice and help you to decide what would be the best course of action (if any) to take. Leaders in Law is particularly experienced in employment law, and would be well placed to advise you further.